§ 3.22 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government how many persons are now detained in Aden and elsewhere in the Federation of South Arabia; how many persons have been released, and how many of those detained will be charged with offences in connection with the bomb outrage in December.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, Sixty-nine persons are now in detention in the Federation, 31 from Aden and 38 from other States; 59 detainees have so far been released. As police investigations are proceeding, it is not possible to say how many detainees will be charged with offences in connection with the bomb incident.
My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire has asked me to take this opportunity to inform the House that the figure of 52 detainees given by him in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, on December 17 was incorrect. That figure related to detainees from Aden only, and it should, in fact, have been 55. During the Recess we learned that on December 17 there were also in custody 51 other persons from elsewhere in the Federation, making a total on 709 December 17 of 106. My Lords, I much regret that the House was inadvertently misinformed.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether those of the political and trade union leaders who are still detained have been linked in any way with the bomb outrage or with a plot against the Government of the Federation; and, if not, whether these persons should not be forthwith released?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think the whole question of the duration of the detention must be looked at against the background of the circumstances in the Federation at the moment. The majority of the detainees were not detained for direct complicity in the bomb outrage, but because the Federal authorities considered that in the circumstances they constituted a danger to Federal security. There has been, as noble Lords and the noble Earl are well aware, widespread subversion in the Federation: arms have been supplied and tribesmen incited to revolt, and a serious threat to security has developed. The whole situation has been made even more inflammable by broadcasts from the Yemen. The Federal authorities' first concern is, as I am sure the noble Earl will agree, to maintain law and order, and they cannot be expected to relax the emergency measures until they consider it safe to do so.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, I appreciate that the emergency cannot be relaxed until it will not imperil security, but it appears that these persons have been detained since December and, although no evidence has been found against them, they are still detained. In these circumstances I should like the noble Marquess to consider whether they ought not to be released within a reasonable period of time if the authorities are unable to find evidence on which to bring them before a court. May I ask one other Question? Would the noble Marquess give the House, within a fairly short period of time, a further report about the security situation in Aden?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, as regards the first point made by the noble Earl, I will certainly bear it in mind. With regard to the 710 second point, if there is information which your Lordships should have, it will of course be given to the House.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to when the persons detained as alleged to be connected with the bomb incident are likely to be brought to trial?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I think I made this clear in my original reply. Investigations are now in process by the police. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, can the noble Marquess say how many of the interned people are actually in prison in Aden, where the others are interned and why there is a difference in the place of internment?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I have those figures. There are detained from the Aden State, 31, and from the other States, 38. When my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire was replying in December the situation was somewhat complicated because a number of detainees from Aden were not detained in Aden itself, but outside. The reason for this was that there was inadequate accommodation in Aden for the number concerned, and also because there was a fear that having a large number of detainees in Aden might constitute a security risk. It was therefore thought advisable for them to be transferred to places outside. I have the names of the places here, and they were in Zingibar, Ja'ar and Ahwar.
EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, were they allowed to see relatives when they were transferred to these outside regions away from Aden?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEYes, my Lords. Not only were they allowed to see relatives, but the authorities provided special facilities for them to do so. They provided accommodation for them to live in so that they were able to come and stay and see the detainees, and in one particular instance a man was allowed to leave his place of detention to visit his wife in hospital.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, would my noble friend confirm that prior to this incident the South Arabian Government was dealing magnificently with the initial stages of the democratic process under the brilliant leadership of the High Commissioner? Furthermore, would he not agree that nothing ought to be said, in this House or elsewhere, in favour of the perpetrators of a bomb outrage which threatens to interrupt this advance of democracy in South Arabia? Ought not this House, in the circumstances, to extend every expression of confidence to those on the spot dealing with the judicial processes and the restoration of law and order?
§ EARL ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, may I say at once that we resent the middle part of that question, because not the slightest implication has been made from this side of the House in that respect.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition, every time I open my mouth, should put into it words which I did not use. It would be very easy to ask why the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, lately Governor General of Ghana, was not more concerned with the thousands of people detained there, many without trial. But I do not make any allegation of that sort.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, it is quite obvious that the noble Earl deserves nearly all the comments that we make about him.